The number of Democrats who looked at Israel favorably dropped from 74 percent to 60 percent.

In contrast, the percentage of Republicans who favor Israel above the Palestinians rose to 83 percent, which has risen from the low 50s in the late 1990s.

Americans overall sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians (62 percent), while 70 percent of Americans look at Israel favorably.

Why are Democrats becoming less favorable toward Israel? CNS News writes that it is because of tension between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama over the Iran nuclear negotiations:

In recent months relations between the White House and Netanyahu government have become increasingly strained, as the Israeli leader continues to argue that a proposed nuclear agreement with Iran will be “dangerous.”

Netanyahu stated:

“It is astonishing that even after the recent IAEA report determined that Iran is continuing to hide the military components of its nuclear program, the nuclear talks with it are proceeding,” he said. “Not only are they continuing, there is an increased effort to reach a nuclear agreement in the coming days and weeks.”

In a Gallup poll last month, the number of American Jews who identify as Democrats has dropped since Obama’s election in 2008. In fact, 71 percent of American Jews identified as Democrats in 2008; and by 2014, that number had dropped to 61 percent.

What do you think of the Democrats’ less favorable attitude toward Israel? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Students at Shattuck Middle School reportedly received an assignment recently that has some parents up in arms. According to EAG News, students at the Neenah, Wis., school were given a worksheet depicting two laborers, one of whom is laying bricks along a pathway while the other is removing them. Scroll down for video.

The former man was shown with the Democrat Party’s jackass symbol on his shirt, while the latter’s clothes bore an elephant associated with the GOP.

The eighth grade class was then instructed to analyze the photos and answer a series of questions about their behavior, culminating with the query: “What might this mean to us about immigration and citizenship?”

As it turns out, the two men reportedly signify the Democrat’s effort to build a so-called pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants contrasted by the position of many Republicans that America’s immigration laws should be enforced.

One parent, Scott Radies, was taken aback by the assignment, explaining he initially checked the back of the sheet “to see if the opposite view” was expressed. It wasn’t.

He then perused his son’s answers – for which he was given a perfect grade.

“When I saw his answers to the questions,” Radies explained, “and realized that the teacher gave him five out of five so apparently those answers that he gave were the ones she was looking for because he got them all right.”

Some of the answers he wrote to earn the grade included his analysis that “the Democrat is building [and] the Republican is destroying” and “that the Democrats want immigrants to come in and Republicans don’t.”

As Western Journalism reported Tuesday, a Texas federal judge issued a temporary block on certain aspects of Barack Obama’s executive action regarding illegal immigration. With millions of illegals set to enjoy de facto amnesty beginning this week, Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling came just days before the controversial order went into effect.

Hanen determined that a porous border and lax security “has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” a phenomenon that increasingly taxes resources among the states forced to receive these uninvited residents.

The judge responded to protests by more than half of all U.S. states in ruling that Obama’s order should face further review before being implemented.

“It is preferable to have the legality of these actions determined before the fates of over four million individuals are decided,” Hanen wrote. “An injunction is the only way to accomplish that goal.”

The decision led the Obama administration to delay issuing preferred status to the millions who would benefit from the executive order. South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, a frequent Obama critic and chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, shared his thoughts on Hanen’s ruling.

He called the decision a “victory for the rule of law,” explaining that Obama’s unilateral order deserved the scrutiny it received.

“The President’s extra-constitutional actions were rooted in political expediency and were devoid of a serious legal underpinning,” Gowdy stated. “This is not and never was about immigration law – as evidenced by the President’s consistent admission that he lacked the legal authority to do precisely what he did.”

While he acknowledged the legitimacy of prosecutorial discretion, Gowdy concluded that it is not “a synonym for anarchy wherein the executive branch can pick and choose portions of laws to enforce and ignore.”

On Tuesday, Barack Obama gave the most disgraceful State of the Union speech in history.

You could cut the air in the chamber as he attempted to call for civility in politics… which was quickly followed by him heckling the Republican Congress to their faces.

Obama’s “greatest” proposal is what some Republicans have called his “Robin Hood” package.

With tax revenue and spending at all-time highs, he still wants the government to get a bigger share of the nation’s revenue.

But remember, Robin Hood was a hero. And Obama isn’t fooling anyone…

The Tales of Robin the Hoodwinker…

Obama’s tax reform proposals wouldn’t be revenue neutral. Instead, he looks to increase taxes by $320 billion, aiming to fund a raft of new social programs. “Free” community college tuition is high on Obama’s “do-good” list.

But also taking precedence on the list are tax increases targeted at stock traders and investors. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax rate from $0.20 to $0.28. He even had the audacity to say President Ronald Reagan accepted this high rate in the 1980s – forgetting to let his audience know Reagan wanted them lower.

On top of the new levy of capital gains, he wants to increase fees on America’s largest banks. These fees, like most corporate taxes, would flow on and be paid by the customers. (Read: average Americans struggling to make ends meet.)

Putting the nail in our economy’s coffin, Obama wants to raise estate taxes. This would hit small business and farmers hard.

Essentially, Obama’s hit list has been dubbed the “Robin Hood” tax package by Republicans. But this is the wrong rhetoric. You see, Robin Hood helped the poor against an overtaxing tyrannical state. Robin Hood fought the officials of the government.

Instead, Obama’s plan is more reminiscent of the Sheriff of Nottingham who abused the poor to fill the coffers of the greedy king.

More Tricks and Mind Games

Small businesses, the engine of a growing economy, are at an all-time low… and by the look of things, not many new ones are being created, either. After all, innovation and small business are what create jobs.

Plain and simple, the small guy gets hosed as Obama tells him everything that he’s doing is for him.

And while the Obama economy has favored the wealthy Obama donors who fill his campaign coffers, the number of billionaires is rapidly growing under his regime. You see, Obama’s stifling regulation kills competition against the big guys already in business. Therefore, the rich keep getting richer.

Sure, the president uses “class warfare” rhetoric; but it’s all a part of government doublespeak. It’s nothing but more Obama schemes and mind games…

According to breaking reports Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a resolution overturning Barack Obama’s executive action granting deferred deportation for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived in the country as children.

The amendment was included in a larger bill aimed at funding the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the year.

Prior to the vote, House Speaker John Boehner explained that his party’s opposition to the executive action on immigration is not based on partisan disagreements–but a desire to uphold the Constitution.

“We do not take this action lightly,” he said, “but simply there is no alternative. It’s not a dispute between the parties or even between the branches of our government. This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.”

The bill is now set to be presented for a Senate vote, where supporters will face an uphill battle for passage.

Even with a majority in the new session, the 54 Senate Republicans would need the help of at least six Democrats to pass the bill.

Republican Rep. Charlie Dent said he is confident members of the other chamber are “not going to pass this bill.”

Some reports indicate senators might take out the immigration amendment and return the funding bill to the House for approval ahead of next month’s deadline.